I've been taking a look at the BEIS committee's report on the effects of Brexit on climate and energy policy, and in particular the section on investor confidence, which struck me as likely to be the most interesting. The section opens thus.

The decision to leave the EU should not distract from the Government’s policies to provide secure and affordable energy supply and to seek ambitious plans to decarbonise our energy system.203

The citation is to the submission from, erm, 38 Degrees. Which does rather make it look as if they are dictating the text.

Reading on, I find that:

Submissions to our inquiry suggest investor concerns remain and have been exacerbated by policy uncertainty due to the EU referendum.211

Then I notice that Chatham House gets mentioned a lot. In fact, they are mentioned something like forty times in the report, almost once per page. It turns out that there were two witnesses from Chatham House:

Kirsty Hamilton, whose bio reveals that she is a renewable energy consultant and a former Greenpeace campaigner.

Antony Froggatt, whose bio reveals that he too is a freelance energy consultant and, erm, a former Greenpeace campaigner.

Parliament hasn't been getting any better at these inquiries in my absence, has it?

Reader Comments (86)

The striking things about this inquiry is its superficiality.

10 months after the referendum, parliament and government are still taking about Brexit in the vaguest of terms. There is no plan, not even a sketch of a plan. Indeed, there is not even an inventory of issues that require a plan.

The loading of the agenda at these committee hearings by the usual suspects is chronic.

The GWPF looks to be being outspent and outnumbered - that doesn't mean it's ineffective. Some scoping of the amount of lobbying seems to be a good idea - I am past fed up with exploring the innards of these matters and finding loads of the usual parasites sustained by pervasive green blob funding.

Honesty, transparency and objectivity be damned - they are out to promote the interests that fill their trough. As per the first comment ... that includes not even bothering to actually engage with the immediate subject.

A measure of the importance of this is the list of names you've probably never heard of. I think that on things like this the government is following a path of - whateve doesn't rock the boat.

Too few people understand the issues on climate or energy. I'm hoping that the squeeze all the political parties are planning to make on the energy industries will result in a more honest approach from them. Up till now, nobody influential (bar the GWPF) have been speaking up on the stupidity of renewables and the suppliers have been rubbing their hands over the subsidies. Silly idealistic green leaning MPs have been getting the influential jobs because nobody else is interested. Even the Conservatives have viewed green issues as a way to remove the label of 'nasty party'. They're all too dumb to see that it's a monstrous money pit.

Unfortunately the Conservatives listen too much to the BBC to gauge public opinion. The Conservatives waste money on things that only worry the metropolitan elite. You'd think that after the surprise of Brexit, they'd look beyond the cities for opinions.

In the context of renewable energy policy, whenever I see the word certainty or uncertainty, hold on to your wallet. In this context it means profitability and in many cases, legislated, guaranteed profitability (hence the term "certainty"). Imagine if fracking produces gas resources as abundant as expected in the UK, only the legislature will be able to make many renewable energy sources profitable.

The Ed Miller Band came up with the idea of a price cap, the suppliers reacted removing low price deals. Labour were mocked for not understanding capitalism’s requirement of profitability.

Conservatives had a chance to cap/reduce/abandon ruinable subsidies, send a message that they understood capitalism and achieve the electoral gain they seek. Additionally, the low tariffs would have remained in place. The finance for that would have come directly from the green trough and unlikely to upset their own voters. But then, the current government thought the EU was a good idea until 17.4 million people pointed out that it was not.

Not that the government would be in the slightest bit interested in anything I have to say - but I have views on both ends of the energy discussion..Firstly - there is no doubt whatsoever that we are heading for a supply-side disaster. The government is closing 'fossil-fuelled' power stations as fast as they can - and with precious little to replace them (whirly things really don't count..).. Then we have the lunacy of Drax - 2000MW sitting on a coalfield - which is now dependent on demolishing forests in North Carolina to turn into wood chips to turn into wood pellets to ship across the Atlantic - because wood is more 'carbon neutral' than coal..!Then there's the further lunacy of Hinkley Point 'C' - a 'political' decision, nothing more, nothing less - which, if it ever generates a single watt (which I doubt), will be the most expensive base-load power on the planet... This view, I hasten to add, from an avowed nuclear fan who worked (a long time ago) at Hinkley Point 'A'...Finally - on the consumer side - I have 'switched' several times - each time has been far from straightforward - the last time (to a small not-for-profit company) has been a complete nightmare - still not fully sorted out after eighteen months. Seems as though their Accounts people have no idea what they are doing - I've had bills of £275 and £257 dated the same day; bills of £0.00 and £900+ in quick succession (neither correct) - and all despite religiously providing meter readings when requested.NOW we have the government stepping in..... What was it Ronald Reagan said, if you hear this your blood will run cold..? 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help....'

"And as the price of renewables comes down , we are seeing that Rubbishables are actually cutting the price of electricity ..cos the sunshine is FREE, the wind is free, gas and coal and oil are not free !" (well you don't pay the Earth Gods for them ..they often just flow out of the ground)"the green energy is becoming the cheapest and pushing down the wholesale energy prices"(Challengehim you stupid woman, but no she just continues reading a script)

Pres "Hows this going to play politically for LibDems " (who gives a what the non-entities say ?)ED "How come the Cons opposed a cap several years ago ...look at the their complete hypocrisy"..That was a PPB for the LibDems ..and the presenter simply moves on

"I've been taking a look at the BEIS committee's report on the effects of Brexit on climate and energy, and in particular the section on investor confidence.."

People investing in climate and energy policy, have done so, confident of seeing a financial return, guaranteed by Government Policy, at the expense of taxpayers, who have lost out financially.

It would be very popular with UK Taxpayers if money was spent on the NHS, rather than handed to those who have gamed Government policy in return for big profits, leaving the UK ill-prepared for bad weather.

The bottom line is still that there are some 'investors' you do not want. Ever. Period.Their "investment" will often also be accompanied by new laws which facilitate said investments.

Now that description could, of course, be applied to many good changes. But when the new laws specifically exclude you from choosing the old method of production, you know what bracket the new investors probably fall into.

With regards to green energy and subsidies I think after reflection that the RHI scandal in Northern Ireland will do much more good than thought. It is a clear example of what happens when you disregard basic economics by inducing personal incentives through the vehicle of subsidies. You end up with barns in the country burning fuel purely for profit, blowing the hot air over the hill outside.

Maybe they have plan and since no plan survives engagement with the enemy they are keeping it to themselves. In fact the imminent election may be stage 1 pushing the next election so far beyond the expiry of our Article 50 notice to turn it to our obvious advantage.

In Stage 2 we advise that we dispute the right of the EU to levy any exit fee per se, and indicate we have no interest in listening to detailed arguments on this basis as we will only make any ex gratia financial offer against a draft agreement on our future relationship. If they persist they will bring nearer the Article 50 expiry date and make any worthwhile financial benefit to them less likely.

Stage 3 might be a very simple plan: The grand repeal or more accurately consolidation bill together with the offer of tariff and customs free trade for all EU compliant goods and services, freedom movement for all EU and British citizens throughout the EU, the UK and dependent territories, subject to local law and regulations. This latter point means that we can decide who can be residents and who can work, receive benefits and use our public services.

Something that struck me, and somewhat surprised me, about the initial demands of the EU was 'reassurances about EU nationals currently living in the UK'. To this my reply would have been, "No. We are keeping them, if they want to stay".

Let us not forget, we are the country that welcomed a lot of Polish people into the UK after Polish accession to the EU. The Germans and 'others' were not so welcoming. Ha ha. We won that one.

Of your little list of 10 witnesses:Alejandro Ciruelos deals with renewable investmentCarol Gould is a member of the clean energy forum, previously worked as Head of Power & Renewables at The Bank of Tokyo, . . . .Ian Simm has talked on opportunities in investing based on climate change and energy efficiency to Bloomberg, and is a member of Natural Environment Research Council Kevin Dibble is a strong advocate of the UK remaining part of the EU's single energy marketand the two NG representatives will no doubt toe the NG line that the more renewable energy the better because it means a bigger UIK grid, and thus more profit for them.

I think that leaves 4 out of 25 witnesses who might talk the fossil fuel position and that's taking the nuclear representatives as being 'on-side'.

About the AuthorsAntony Froggatt joined Chatham House in 2007 and is a senior research fellow in the Energy, Environment and Resources Department (EER). He is also an associate member of the Energy Policy Group (EPG) at Exeter University. At Chatham House, he specializes in global electricity policy and the public understanding of climate change. He has worked as an independent consultant for 20 years with environmental groups, academics and public bodies in Europe and Asia, and also as a freelance journalist.

Georgina Wright is a research assistant and coordinator of the Europe Programme at Chatham House. Before joining Chatham House in 2014, she worked in the Directorate for Central and West Africa in DG DEVCO at the European Commission and as a summer researcher at NATO. Her research interests include the UK’s relationship with the EU, EU foreign and security policy, and the future of the EU. She read politics at the University of Edinburgh and holds an MA in EU international relations and diplomacy studies from the College of Europe (Bruges).

Matthew Lockwood is a senior research fellow in the Energy Policy Group (EPG) at the University of Exeter. He has conducted research and policy analysis on a wide range of UK and European energy and climate issues for over 10 years. He previously worked for the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the London Development Agency, and the universities of Sussex and Cambridge. He is currently leading a project on the politics of energy policy interactions between the UK and the EU, funded by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC).

I never said he might be Prime Minister, just that he might be Labour Leader by the next General Election. If Corbyn does not step down in June, David Miliband will have to find a safeish Labour seat, desperate to have a credible MP, and without a local party run by Momentum. He could unite the Party, without Unite/Unison support, but with genuine popular support.

The plus point of leaving the EU is that, when things go wrong, the UK government has to take the responsibility. They will not be able to wriggle out of it so easily as they have done for the last 40 years. The buck will stop here.

@ BudgieYup - it's all about sovereignty - and with that goes accountability - something that those goons in Brussels never bothered with.Nigel has been on about it long enough - here he is.deleted previous post - poor sound

Ah – Mr Seitz. While you are here, could I repeat my request for the evidence that you have assured us is out there that the recent 200 years of climate change (after 4.5 billion years of continually changing climate) is all the fault of human-produced CO2? Let me assure you that I have searched hard for this evidence, but am still unable to find it.

As usual, please note: the evidence needs to be verifiable, and should not include the assumptions and conclusions of others, nor should it refer to models.

SupertrollIt is because he has made a blog using VV instead of W for Watts up with That? - he uses it as a means to parody or in some way diminish the value of that site. Hence - he has gained the nickname of VV - at least in my book. The pic below shows his banner - I used in in one of my cartoons here awhile backcheers

poor old VV the troll has wandered by again - maybe looking for his Irish mate - wrong country of course - but he doesn't seem to know that - or much else for that matter. never mind -and Supertroll - I deleted the previous posting of this because the picture was too small. The troll needed to be seen clearly as he is - a pathetic benighted twit.

10 months after the referendum, parliament and government are still taking about Brexit in the vaguest of terms. There is no plan, not even a sketch of a plan. Indeed, there is not even an inventory of issues that require a plan.

May 9, 2017 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol"

What!

You would think some government committees are at work...?

Come to think of it, it is a bunch of government committees working on brexit; starting with T. May, a committee of one.

What is needed are committee leaders who actually believe committee members should work hard against stiff deadlines.

Right now, what it looks like from the Western side of the Atlantic pond, is that Theresa May/won't cabinet/committee members are waiting for the next reorg to absolve their "no work here" sins.

Fieldmouse. I understand the VV antipathy, but I was concerned that I had no understanding of the special distaste that you, as a fine specimen of a fieldmouse, have for this particular foible and for Seitz in particular. Has your hairy tail been stepped upon?